Last week, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece by the White House’s own media strategist, Tony Pé, responding to the Times’ scathing editorial about the White House’s handling of the government shutdown and the president’s recent racist remarks.
The subject line of the article — “The Truth About the Shutdown” — confirmed Pé’s role as the White House’s chief spokesman during the government shutdown. When the Times pointed out that Pé had neither filed nor checked facts for the piece, his role as the White House’s mouthpiece was called into question.
But Pé wasn’t the only person in the White House with a pen. And, in fact, he wasn’t even the first op-ed writer the White House had employed. As it turns out, the White House has a history of employing op-ed writers and relying on them to defend the administration’s policies and press conferences in the media. In the aftermath of the Times’ editorial, many of Pé’s former and current colleagues wondered aloud whether he would keep his job.
OP-ED WRITERS: A HISTORY
The Times wasn’t the first news organization to discover the power of op-ed writers. Many newspapers, including the New York Times, have an opinion desk where seasoned writers are invited to churn out essays about politics and public policy. The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and many others have longstanding traditions of inviting op-ed writers to share their thoughts on topical issues.
While the Times editorial board is no longer a launching pad for op-ed writers, it’s still a common stop for political writers who want to pitch a thought-provoking piece about the news of the day. Many Times writers who have gone on to write for prestigious publications — including Charles Lane, Bret Stephens, and more — began their careers at the paper’s opinion desk.
OP-ED WRITTEN FOR THE TIMES
As its name would suggest, the New York Times editorial page is where the paper’s editorial board publishes its weekly editorials. These editorials aren’t just a platform for the board’s writers to offer their thoughts on the important topics of the day. They are also a chance for the administration to respond to the paper’s criticisms or praise.
Since its founding in 1851, the Times has generally published editorials supporting American democracy and free speech. The editors at the Times have never been afraid to criticize their own president when they felt the need, as in the Vietnam War or the Central American wars, or when they felt that his policies were dangerously misguided, as in the case of the Iraq War.
For much of the 20th century, newspaper editorial boards were bastions of moderation, often resisting pressures from the political right and left to adopt a more polarized view.
But, in recent years, the opinion pages of mainstream newspapers have shifted to the right, a phenomenon that many have attributed to the rise of Fox News and other conservative media. Today, many newspapers’ editorial boards are dominated by conservatives who tend to favor strong leadership and decisive action in times of crisis, and they have a tendency, as a result, to applaud the policies of president Trump.
Whether or not Trump’s opponents are happy to see him succeed where they failed is a matter of perspective. But the Times could certainly stand to lose a few column inches as a result of the government shutdown. In the aftermath of the shutdown, the editorial page felt the need to issue a mea culpa, publishing a rare editorial titled, “We Were Wrong About the Shutdown.” In it, the editors admit that, while they supported Trump’s objectives in office, they had underestimated the political consequences of the government shutdown, which they dubbed a “complete and utter disaster.”
RISE OF THE PROPAGANDA MACHINE
This isn’t the first time that the Times has employed a senior media strategist to help write editorials and op-eds. Back in 2016, the paper turned to Frank Luntz, the “Godfather of Spin,” to help it win the war of words with Trump. Luntz, who had worked with many prominent politicians and CEOs, helped the Times craft talking points to counter Trump’s rhetoric.
Since then, the Times has turned to Luntz’s firm, Acme Global, to help keep the paper’s reputation as an objective window into news events and issues alive during the Trump administration and, occasionally, when the president makes a rare visit to the paper’s New York office.
MARKETING THE WHITE HOUSE
Many people, including some in the media, have suggested that the Times’ decision to hire Pé was, in part, an effort to market the White House. While it’s true that the White House press secretary plays an important role in selling the administration and its policies to the public, that doesn’t mean that writing an op-ed piece is the ideal way to reach people.
For decades, newspapers and other traditional media outlets have touted the importance of their editorial pages in reaching and informing the public. While the internet certainly helped undermine that notion, it didn’t do away with the need for a vibrant press. Instead, it just made it possible for citizens to get their news from a variety of sources, which, in turn, makes it much more difficult for journalists to convince people that their coverage is unbiased and objective.
In his first year in office, Trump won the White House by bludgeoning the media into submission and refusing to give journalists the access they crave. In that climate, it’s not surprising that an op-ed writer would be seen as a welcome addition to the press team. But that doesn’t mean the role is without its challenges. As the Times’ editorial board has learned, the media landscape has changed, and it requires journalists to continually update their skills to be able to keep up with the shifting media environment.
For the most part, the Times’ editorial board has dealt with this change by pivoting and adapting. A decade after the paper employed Luntz, it turned to a group of data scientists to help it pinpoint the most effective ways to communicate with its audience. Like Luntz before them, the data scientists helped the paper discover that its editorial board was much more effective at pushing its agenda and persuading people to take a certain view on an issue when they participated in the public debate rather than simply reading an editorial in a newspaper.
TONY’S REPLY: WHAT DID PAUL OMRIE SAY?
Last week, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece by the White House’s own media strategist, Tony Pé, responding to the Times’ scathing editorial about the White House’s handling of the government shutdown and the president’s recent racist remarks.
The subject line of the article — “The Truth About the Shutdown” — confirmed Pé’s role as the White House’s chief spokesman during the government shutdown. When the Times pointed out that Pé had neither filed nor checked facts for the piece, his role as the White House’s mouthpiece was called into question.
But Pé wasn’t the only person in the White House with a pen. And, in fact, he wasn’t even the first op-ed writer the White House had employed. As it turns out, the White House has a history of employing op-ed writers and relying on them to defend the administration’s policies and press conferences in the media.
A LONG LINE OF DEFENCE
The New York Times editorial page is where the paper’s editorial board publishes its weekly editorials. These editorials aren’t just a launching pad for op-ed writers to offer their thoughts on the important topics of the day. They are also a chance for the administration to respond to the paper’s criticisms or praise.
Since its founding in 1851, the Times has generally published editorials supporting American democracy and free speech. The editors at the Times have never been afraid to criticize their own president when they felt the need, as in the Vietnam War or the Central American wars, or when they felt that his policies were dangerously misguided, as in the case of the Iraq War.
For much of the 20th century, newspaper editorial boards were bastions of moderation, often resisting pressures from the political right and left to adopt a more polarized view.
But, in recent years, the opinion pages of mainstream newspapers have shifted to the right, a phenomenon that many have attributed to the rise of Fox News and other conservative media.
In 2006, the Los Angeles Times hired a seasoned Washington journalist, Carl Hulse, to be its opinions editor. Soon after, the Wall Street Journal named its opinion section the “Opinionator,” and many other newspapers, including the New York Times, followed suit.